Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 03 May 2023 and 14 August 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s timely election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 4-9, in the reply filed on 21 April 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged and found unpersuasive. It is noted that Leck was used prior to the amendments to the claims. Yamashita (US 20160146496 A1) teaches an air conditioning apparatus comprising a refrigerant mixture consisting of only difluoromethane (R32 hereinafter) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf hereinafter) of 44 wt.% R32 and 56 wt.% HFO-1234yf (para [0077]). This satisfies the claimed refrigerant mixture and special technical feature.
Claims 14-17 and 20-27 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita (US 20160146496 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Yamashita teaches an air conditioning apparatus comprising a refrigerant mixture consisting of only difluoromethane (R32 hereinafter) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf hereinafter) of 44 wt.% R32 and 56 wt.% HFO-1234yf (para [0077]).
Please note, the intended use of the above claimed mixture (i.e. for replacing R-410A..) does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition.
In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting (see, e.g., MPEP 2112).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 20160146496 A1) in view of Leck (US 20120267564 A1).
The teachings of Yamashita is disclosed above.
With regard to claim 4, Yamashita does not teach the incorporation of additional components into the refrigerant mixture.
In the same field of endeavor, Leck teaches a composition for refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump systems comprising difluoromethane (R32) and tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (Abstract). Leck further discloses that the refrigerant blends may optionally include other components— such as lubricants, dyes (including UV dyes), solubilizing agents, compatibilizers, stabilizers, tracers, perfluoropolyether, anti-wear agents, extreme pressure agents, corrosion and oxidation inhibitors, metal surface energy reducers, metal surface deactivators, free radical scavengers, foam control agents, viscosity index improvers, pour point depressants, detergents, viscosity adjusters, and mixtures— to improve performance characteristic (para [0058]). These optional components taught by Leck specifically satisfy the limitations claimed.
With regard to the additive components, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate said additives into the refrigerant mixture to achieve the desirable performance quality and obtain the claimed composition. Although, the cited references differ in their selection of additives, they collectively teach the same base refrigerant mixture for similar applications. Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to modify the mixture with known additives.
With regard to claim 5, Leck teaches a refrigerant composition comprises various lubricants, including polyvinyl ethers (PVEs), polycarbonates, synthetic paraffins and naphthene, mineral oil, polyol esters, alkylbenzenes, and polyalkylene glycols (PAGs) (para [0061-0062]). Leck further teaches that such lubricants are added to enhance compressor lubrication and prevent composition seizing (para [0026]).
With regard to the lubricant, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate these known additives into the refrigerant mixture. The person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to improve both workability and operational longevity, following the teachings of Leck.
With regard to claim 6, Leck teaches the refrigerant composition comprises lubricants, including polyvinyl ethers (PVEs) and polyol esters (paras. [0061-0062]).
With regard to claim 7, Yamashita does not teach the incorporation of stabilizer into the refrigerant mixture.
In the same field of endeavor, Leck teaches the refrigerant composition comprises stabilizer including terpenes, terpenoids, epoxides, butylated triphenylphosphorothionates, benzophenone and derivatives, terephthalic acid, epoxides, phenols (para [0077]).
As stated above, Yamashita in combination of Leck teaches the incorporation of additives, specifically stabilizers.
With regard to claim 8, Leck teaches that the refrigerant composition comprises stabilizer including terpenes (para [0077]).
As stated above, Yamashita in combination of Leck teaches the incorporation of additives, specifically stabilizers.
With regard to claim 9, Leck teaches that the refrigerant composition comprises stabilizer including limonene, terpinene, pinene (para [0078]).
As stated above, Yamashita in combination of Leck teaches the incorporation of additives, specifically stabilizers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights